HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joyceline Manu
Applicant
-and-
Centum Fundamental Financial Inc. and Russel Ramlochan
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Manu v. Centum Fundamental Financial Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Centum Fundamental Financial Inc., Respondent
Victor Huo, Representative
Introduction
1On June 2, 2015, the Tribunal issued Decision 2015 HRTO 725 (the “Decision”) upholding the Application. The respondent Centum Fundamental Financial Inc. (“Centum”) has filed a Request for the Tribunal to reconsider the Decision.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2In the Request for reconsideration, Centum advises the Tribunal that it does not accept the Decision because it is of the view that it should not be liable for Mr. Ramlochan’s conduct because he was an independent mortgage agent. Centum also advises that it is a small company and cannot retain the services of an expert to develop a policy and provide training.
3Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.
45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration includes the following statements:
Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the HRTO. Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.
5As is evident from the above, reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. That is, while the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider its own decisions, it is not obliged to do so. It may decide when reconsideration is advisable, both through the promulgation of rules setting out conditions for the exercise of its discretion, and through the application of its discretion on a case-by-case basis.
Decision
6I find that Centum has not met the burden of establishing any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration. Centum is repeating arguments made orally before the Tribunal which I did not accept, as explained in the Decision. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to restate or re-argue a position already advanced and considered.
7With respect to the public interest remedies ordered in the Decision, I note that the applicant was seeking the implementation of the policy and training in the Application. All of the parties, including Centum, made submissions on this issue. During the course of the hearing and these submissions it became clear that Centum is incapable of implementing either of these public interest remedies because it has no understanding of its obligations pursuant to the Code; therefore, it was appropriate for the Tribunal to require it to retain the services of an expert. There is also no basis to reconsider this aspect of the Decision.
Order
8Centum’s Request to reconsider is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of September, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair